From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #3
Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Precedence: bulk
skunk-works-digest Thursday, January 14 1999 Volume 08 : Number 003
Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Re: Missing X-Planes ?
Re: English vs. Metric
Re: English vs. Metric
B-2 News Propaganda from the Air Ministry
Re: Missiles Missing
Re: Missing X-Planes ?
Test....(Weapons Investigators in Iraq)
F-16 inlets
Blackbird 965 found
Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Re:English vs. Metric
Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye
RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Photo of Bogus NASA U-2 Used in Gary Powers Coverup
Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
***************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:20:22 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: Re: Missing X-Planes ?
At 05:49 PM 1/8/99, David from the UK admonished:
>Thanks for replying John. I was a little surprised and disappointed that
>no-one on the SW List seemed interested in the missing X-Planes. Now I'm
>back at work, I'll look into this and let you know the outcome privately.
>
C'mon Yanks. Are we gonna have to read about this first in one of those 3
month old "Aeroplane" magazines we see on the rack at the cigar store that
has to be paid for in pounds or shillings or farthings???
Commence FOIA'ing!
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:27:00 -0800
From: Ryan Kirk
Subject: Re: English vs. Metric
David Lednicer wrote:
> The metric system jumps straight from millimeters to centimeters to
> meters, without a "decimeters" (factor of 10) unit. Feet are a nice unit,
> as they are "just about right" sizewise for describing large things.
> Similarly, inches are just about right for describing detailed aircraft
> geometry, while millimeters and centimeters are too small, while meters
> are too big. The same holds true for weights - pounds are much better
> sized than kilograms.
But there is a decimeter. It's 1/10th of a meter. The trouble is, it
takes roughly three of them to equal a foot, which would put it in the
"not just about right" category. Of course, that is all a matter of
preference.
> My real complaint is with the clowns who thought up "pounds mass"
> and decided to call things weighed in the metric system "kilograms".
> Pounds are unit of weight, not mass. Slugs are mass. Similarly,
> kilograms are mass, not weight. If you want to weigh something in the
> metric system, it should be in Newtons. My complaint also extends to
Objects weighed using the SI *are* measured in newtons. However, close
to the earth there isn't much use in finding the weight of an object
since gravity will always be a constant (W=mg). Weight is a vector
quantity. Since weight refers to the gravitational force exerted on an
object by a very massive body like the earth, the weight of an object
varies with its location because the acceleration of gravity varies from
location to location. An object weighs slightly less in an airplane at
ten thousand feet than it does at sea level. Accordingly, an object on
the moon weighs one-sixth as much as it does on the earth. However, the
mass of an object is always the same, since mass is defined as the
amount of matter in an object, which is measured by finding its inertia
(its resistance to a change in its motion by a known force). What
people really mean is that they are finding the mass of an object, not
the weight, when an object is measured in kilograms.
Personally, I much prefer the SI. I think it's sort of ridiculous to
say that the foot is a "nicer" unit of measurement than the meter. The
argument that an approximation using feet is more accurate than one with
meters is baloney. Anything that's being measured with such a
relatively large unit of measurement is just going to be a rough
estimate. Any type of detailed measurement will always include feet and
inches or meters and centimeters. In that case, we're better of with
centimeters than inches since they're smaller.
If we were to convert, I think a staggered approach would be best.
First, convert all regular units of gallons, inches, etc. in the
commercial industry. Let everyone get used to that. Then, maybe a
couple years later, go to kilometers. And then finally, even more after
that, go from farenheit to centigrade. Save that one for last since its
conversion offers the least amount of benefits. One other note. Say
the US did start using the SI instead of the English system. People
complain about conversion factors, but that's a moot point. The
transition will be instantaneous. You won't need to convert kilometers
into miles; you'll just say, "it's 76 kilometers to get there." Anyone
who's gone overseas can attest that it's no trouble at all getting used
to kilometers, it really is much less of a deal than people think.
Ryan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:19:38 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: Re: English vs. Metric
At 08:27 PM 1/7/99 -0800, unfortunately everyone wrote.
George I am sincerely sorry I ever created this thread. Next time I get an
idea like this one I will bury my head in 6 fathoms of water. Sorry about
your digest. Is it up to a ream yet?
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:32:05 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: B-2 News Propaganda from the Air Ministry
990021. Last Block 20 B-2 leaves Whiteman
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFPN) -- The Spirit of Oklahoma B-2
stealth bomber recently left here for the Northrop Grumman modification
line in Palmdale, Calif.
The stealth bomber is the first Block 20 B-2 delivered and now the last
one to be upgraded to Block 30.
Since their arrival, all but two B-2s were sent back for Block 30
modification. The Block 30 modification brings more enhanced avionics,
almost twice the number of radar modes, far superior terrain-following
abilities and increased survivability. Also, Block 30s are certified
for new weapons including the Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and are
more easily deployed.
The B-2 "blocks" began with a Block 10 initial configuration. The Block
20s had enhanced avionics and low observable characteristics, which
improved their survivability and combat effectiveness. On Oct. 8, 1996,
three Block 20 B-2s went against 16 targets at the Nellis Air Force
Base, Nev., range complex. Sixteen weapons were dropped; 16 targets
were hit.
The re-thinking of the employment of long-range heavy bombers came
because of the incredible results achieved by those three Block-20 jets
loaded with the Global Positioning System-aided targeting system and
GPS-aided munitions.
According to Capt. David Miller, 325th Bomb Squadron maintenance
officer, the wing will see increased combat capability because Block 30
planes use a dramatically improved self-diagnostic system.
"Our flying mission lives and dies by our ability to quickly and
accurately troubleshoot faults. Remarkable improvements in system
self-diagnostics empower our technicians to rapidly narrow down the
source of faults, identify corrective measures and return the jets to
flying status," said Miller.
The number of low observable write-ups has been reduced by a factor of
five when comparing Block 30s to the Block 20s, according to Maj.
Michael Andress, 509th Maintenance Squadron maintenance supervisor.
Other improvements include fine-tuning the aft deck and rudders, and the
leading edges of the wing were entirely re-engineered. (Courtesy of
Air Combat Command News Service)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 99 03:02:56 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Missiles Missing
On 1/6/99 6:33AM, in message , "James P.
Stevenson" wrote:
> This is totally consistant with previous experience of American air-to-air
> missiles.
>
> The promise, while always in the 80-90 percent range, has actually
> exhibited 10-20 percent in actual combat.
>
> Jim Stevenson
>
>
>
You'll notice, of course, they never even had a Chance to use a gun....
(Jim, did you ever get my message to you on this debate?)
Art
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:08:26 +0100
From: Urban Fredriksson
Subject: Re: Missing X-Planes ?
On: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:44:26, win@writer.win-uk.net (David) wrote:
>We know about the X-38 ACRV and the X-40A USAF SMV.
>So what's happened to: X-39, X-41 & X-42 ?
X-39 is unassigned, but reserved for USAF Research
Laboratory. "...may have been intended for an unmanned
FATE (Future Aircraft Technology Enhancements) demonstrator..."
X-41 is a classified programme. "...an experimental
manoeuvrabel reentry vehicle carrying a variety of
payloads through a suborbital trajectory, and
reentering and dispersing the payload in the
atmosphere..."
X-42 is a classified programme. "... an experimental
expendable liquid rocket motor upper stage to boost
2000-4000 payloads to orbit..."
- --
Urban Fredriksson griffon@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:54:29 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: Test....(Weapons Investigators in Iraq)
TEST....Ignore this message.
Evidently part of the brouhaha over the Weapons Inspectors acting as spies
has some merit. The Inspectors were equipped with radio receivers (US made
and very state of the art!) given to them by someone working for the US
government. They were intended to be used by the inspectors intercepting
cell phone calls made by the Iraqi Guard units who were responsible for
playing the shell game with the secret weapons. Fair enough. But in
addition to receiving these private calls, the same equipment retransmitted
or relayed these signals to Bahrain where they were relayed on to England.
All real time. Well....its not known how much the weapons inspectors were
aware of their involvement in this process. And you can fill in the blanks
as to who was at the receiving end of this clever little ploy.
TEST OUT.
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:13:30 -0800
From: David Lednicer
Subject: F-16 inlets
This is a little off-subject, but I'm hoping that someone here
knows the answer to this:
Later model F-16Cs and Ds have a larger inlet than the F-16As and
Bs. This inlet is called either the Modular Common Inlet Duct (MCID) or
"big mouth" inlet. I need to figure out the geometry of this inlet and
then modify my computer model of a F-16A inlet to represent the MCID.
Does anyone have accurate info on this inlet? There was an Av Week
article on it sometime in the last ten years, but I can't find it - does
anyone know the date of this article?
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:34:53 EST
From: Xelex@aol.com
Subject: Blackbird 965 found
On 9 January 1999, Peter Merlin and Tony Moore, known as The X-Hunters
Aerospace Archeology Team, located the crash site of SR-71A (61-7965) near
Lovelock, Nevada.
The aircraft was lost during a night training sortie on 25 October 1965. Maj.
Roy St. Martin and Capt. John Carnochan departed from Beale AFB, California,
using the call sign ASPEN 28. A little over two hours into the flight, the
aircraft was descending and decelerating near Elko, Nevada. At this time, the
crew noticed a malfunction in the attitude indicator and horizontal situation
indicator. The autopilot had become disconnected, and the RSO reported that
his astro-inertial navigation system had stopped functioning as a valid
reference source. With the aircraft in an unusual attitude, and no instrument
of visual reference to correct it, the crew ejected. The aircraft struck the
ground in a near-vertical dive at high speed, creating a deep crater in the
desert. The SR-71 was completely destroyed, with no recognizable structures
remaining. The crew parachuted to safety.
Today, the crater is gone. Only scattered debris remains to mark the site.
Merlin and Moore have previously located the crash sites of SR-71A (61-7953)
and YF-12A (60-6936). Another Blackbird crash site, A-12 (60-6928) was
located by Tom Mahood in 1997.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:40:48 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption
is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic
and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane.
Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert?
http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg
thanks, patrick
ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:51:00 -0800
From: Colin Thompson
Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
I don't claim to be an expert but the photo shows an F-4 at supersonic
speed at only 50' above the deck? Looks more like a hoax to me. It
reeks of Art Smell!
73,
Colin
patrick wrote:
>
> Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption
> is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic
> and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane.
>
> Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert?
>
> http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg
>
> thanks, patrick
>
> ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:46:52 +0200
From: Petru Radu SIRLI
Subject: Re:English vs. Metric
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please remember that "mass" is something that exists also in absence
of gravity and is a measure of inertia.
Newton is a measure of force and, YES, weight because it is the
effect of gravity on mass.
For the metric system please refer to some coherent manuals and not
simply on inner gut feelings.
The mess is created by some measure system narrow minded who are to
infatuated by the things they have learned in the primary school,
like... never mind.
- --
=============================
Radu Sirli
rsirli@aut.utt.ro
http://www.aut.utt.ro/~rsirli
=============================
- --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Petru Radu SIRLI
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Petru Radu SIRLI
n: SIRLI;Petru Radu
org: U. "Politehnica" Timisoara, A.I.I. Dept.
adr: 2 V.Parvan, TIMISOARA;;A.I.I. Dept.;Timisoara;;1900;ROMANIA
email;internet: rsirli@aut.utt.ro
tel;work: +40 (0)96 204 333
tel;fax: +40 (0)96 192 049
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
- --------------6DBD68DAE0E3B4AF2B55B8EA--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:48:14 -0800
From: Larry Smith
Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Patrick writes:
>>Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption
>>is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic
>>and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane.
>>
>>Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert?
>>
>>http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg
Colin Thompson responds:
>I don't claim to be an expert but the photo shows an F-4 at supersonic
>speed at only 50' above the deck? Looks more like a hoax to me. It
>reeks of Art Smell!
I share both of your skepticism about where you found this.
OK I'll give you my 2 cents worth. Other knowledgeable people can
jump in too. I'm not an expert, but I enjoy learning about this stuff.
However, this photo looks to me like it's probably real.
The whole aircraft wouldn't have to be supersonic, just pieces of it.
Therefore I would guess that this photo shows what is called a
transonic flow, where the whole aircraft isn't supersonic yet,
but sections of it are.
I feel this way because the white fog areas are condensation areas that
look quite like what are called expansion shocks.
The condensation is the latent water on the air being changed from
a vapor to a liquid. It's visible because the air molecules and water
molecules have been rammed together by an invisible compression shock
upstream of where these vapor areas are. And then the expansion area
on the airframe, causes a cooling of the flow, which causes the water
vapor to condense into the liquid phase as the air/water molecules
expand and cool back to their ambient atmospheric density, pressure,
and temperature.
The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. Namely
just down stream of the maximum thickness of the wing, both above and
below the wing, and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phaontom II
has an expansion area as the cowl completes its internal compression or
where the inlet throat is (what did they do on the F-4's inlet - is it
mixed compression or all external compression).
I think the aircraft is transonic as there is no strong bow shock
viisible yet, at the tip of the radome, and there really isn't an expansion
area on the nose save for under the radome, where interestingly there
isn't a condensation area either, however I think that is because there
aren't enough water molecules there to show up.
There's no expansion shocks visible at the tail as the heat of the double
nozzle flow is probably too high to cause condensation before the water
molecules get back to atmospheric.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Larry
PS:
Cool Photo!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:53:31 -0800
From: ehoel@esri.com
Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible
for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a
fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow?
Erik
- --
Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com
Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com
380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel
Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:46:09 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
At 10:53 AM 1/13/99 -0800, Erik wrote:
>As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible
>for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a
>fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow?
>
=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=====----==-==
This was my thinking. Too low. Too close to the crowd. Too many
potential problems. Course I assumed (natural bias?) it was an AF plane.
I was corrected by someone who spotted the Playboy bunny on the tail and he
even told me the Navy squadron number. Point being is it has to be a dated
photo. And the air show was Pt. Mugu NAS. I can see under those
circumstances the hi speed pass being allowed. Certainly would never
happen today at a commercial air show. And how can you argue with Larry's
explanation.
Times change fast. It wasn't too many years ago the FAA tower allowed me
to stand on a runway and photograph F-106's landing. Only stipulation was
I had to have a VHF radio for them to contact me. Got a bit crowded I'll
admit when a 727 came in.
Remember....These are the good old days!
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:50:04 -0700
From: "Allen Thomson"
Subject: RFI: French airfield(?) near Broye
While doing some research into French work on counter-stealth and other
multistatic radars, I came across a reference
(http://sat-net.com/listserver/sat-space-news/msg00166.html) to a space
surveillance radar transmitter being installed at "Broyes-les-Pesnes" in the
region of Dijon. Checking my trusty Michelin touring atlas of France, I see
what appears to be a military airfield with a long north-south runway just
north of Broye, near Pesmes, due east of Dijon and just east of the River
Saone. Presumably this is the site meant.
Question for the readership: Does anyone happen to have any information on
the history and present activities of this airfield (assuming that's what it
is)? Or what it is if it isn't an airfield?
BTW and with reference to a couple of messages here last month, the
referenced item indicates that the French have also been working on TV-based
bistatic radars for counter-stealth ("radars antifurtivite sur la
television")
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:19:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Kaltsidis
Subject: RE: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
> As a follow-up to Larry's interesting analysis of the photo - is it possible
> for an F-4 to fly supersonic at this low level? If so, wouldn't it cause a
I believe it should be able to.
According to:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f004-21.html
The F-4J can do Mach 1.15 @sea level.
> fair amount of "discomfort" to the folks at the airshow?
I agree with you completely, F-4's equipped with early J79 engines were
notorious for being extremely loud and leaving clearly visible con-trails.
The low level dash such as pictured
@http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg
probably caused quite a bit of discomfort regardless of whether the F-4J
actually went supersonic or not.
The site above and http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/aircraft/f4j.html both
indicate that the F-4J had J79-GE-10 turbojets. I am not intimately familiar
with this version of the J79, so perhaps one of the experts on the list could
enlighten us.
Sam
>
> Erik
> --
> Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com
> Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com
> 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel
> Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:52:06 -0800
From: G&G
Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
I just read something about this event (but this photo wasn't
mentioned) in a newsgroup today, probably rec.aviation.mil,
a search of dejanews might turn it up. IIRC the subject line
contained "Pt Magu" (yes it was misspelled in the subject line).
The post contained alleged text of the backseater narrating the
mach meter, saying "..0.96...0.98...1.02...uhoh..." I don't
recall the alleged date, but it was a few years ago.
Greg
patrick wrote:
>
> Anyone care to comment on this photo? I am curious to know if the caption
> is correct--that the effect photographed really is an F-4 going supersonic
> and not just a hi speed vapor condensation cloud surrounding the plane.
>
> Larry aren't you the resident shock cone expert?
>
> http://www.artbell.com/images/jetbarrier.jpg
>
> thanks, patrick
>
> ps: pretend its not from Art Bell!!!
- --
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% %%
%% Reality is for People Who %%
%% Can't Handle Simulation %%
%% %%
%% habu@cyberramp.net %%
%% gdfieser@hti.com %%
%% %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 99 06:19:30 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Depending on the year, that could be an F-4J or S and yes, they're supersonic on
the deck.
The lack of visible smoke doesn't mean anything, the J-79s without modification
smoked at low or up at military power. If the F-4 was supersonic, especially down
low, it would be in some stage of afterburner and there would be no smoke. IN
Vietnam, as naval F-4s approached areas where it was thought Migs might be, the
would cruise in zone 1 afterburner, still subsonic, and accept the higher fuel
burn in order to eliminate smoke.
You can get this kind of phenomena at high subsonic speeds if the air is saturated
with moisture. However I wouldn't have a problem believing he might be going
marginally supersonic. Pt. Mugu is right by the ocean and with the big Pacific
Missile Test Range right offshore they do things at that show that they no longer
can do elsewhere. For example, one feature unique to that show was that a flare
would be dropped offshore and then (providing there was no morons in sailboats or
idiots in Cessna where they weren't supposed to be), they would have a fighter
fire a real, no-kidding, end-of-life Sidewinder at it. I wouldn't worry about
distance from the crowd. Sonic booms have developed a mystique over the years
because they're now so rare here. Prior to the mid '60s, they weren't that rate
over land and they were often a staple of airshows at military bases that were
some distance from cities. When I was but a wee lad I went to some of those shows
and I remember watching a B-58s or a fighter make a just-supersonic pass some
distance in front of the crowd. The boom was definitely loud, but no louder than
a jet in full afterburner passing a lot closer to the crowd, and it lasted a lot
less.
Art
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:33:15 -0800
From: patrick
Subject: Photo of Bogus NASA U-2 Used in Gary Powers Coverup
Not a great photo but historically interesting topic if you haven't seen it.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/U-2/HTML/E-5442.html
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:59:47 -0800
From: Larry Smith
Subject: Re: Shock cone on an F-4 Phantom
Interesting posts from Colin, Erik, Patrick, Sam, Greg, and Art.
Let me modify/clarify my analysis somewhat.
Again, feel free to comment. Take this as just pointing out features
that we can discuss if you want.
>The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. ...
>and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phantom II
>has an expansion area as the cowl completes its internal compression or
>where the inlet throat is (what did they do on the F-4's inlet - is it
>mixed compression or all external compression).
Let me say this better and add some more observations.
The expansion shocks also look like they're in the correct places. ...
and also behind the inlet cowl lip, where the Phantom II turns the
flow to the inlet duct main axis (it doesn't matter if external
compression or mixed compression is actually employed when supersonic,
it's correct in both cases to just say the flow is turned to
the duct centerline, and easier to understand too!).
Also, note the vertical condensation above the inlet and below it
(its harder to see the one below). This seems to be flow out of the
ducts just behind the inlet ramp (the inlet ramp is the thing that
looks like a flat plate stuck to the side of the F-4 just in front
of the inlet duct openings).
These ducts are on both the top and bottom (I believe they're also
on the underside from a model of the F-4 I built some years ago).
They're definitely on the top as I have a very cool picture of
Steve Ritchie climbing out of his F-4, after becoming an ace,
where he's standing in the cockpit and giving the thumbs up but
the camera is looking down on him. You can clearly see these topside
vents.
I'm not sure what these vents are for on the F-4. Usually this kind
of thing is an outlet for boundary layer bleed for the ramp, or
they're involved with 'starting' the inlet and keeping the inlet
'started' (preventing inlet unstarts - going subcritical - coughing
out the normal shock (however you want to say it).
Does anyone have a Phantom II Dash-1 handy? Does it say in there?
I have an F-4C Dash-1 packed away somewhere. I'll see if I can find
it.
>there really isn't an expansion
>area on the nose save for under the radome, where interestingly there
>isn't a condensation area either,
Atually, it looks like there IS a condensation expansion shock fan
just under the radome EXACTLY in this expanson area!! Look very
closely. This would tend to confirm that we are really looking at
expansion shock fans as they are all in the correct place.
>I think the aircraft is transonic as there is no strong bow shock
>viisible yet, at the tip of the radome
I'm probably WRONG about that. Since we're seeing condensation
ONLY due to espansion shocks cooling wator vapor to a liquid,
there aren't any expansion areas on the nose, save for the one
under the radome I mentioned above. And it looks like there are
expansion shock trains there.
So, we are seeing expansion shock trains, but not any compression
shocks, so I don't think I can say the aircraft is subsonic.
Comments?
Larry
------------------------------
End of skunk-works-digest V8 #3
*******************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe
in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address
to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to georgek@netwrx1.com.
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at:
http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works
If you have any questions or problems please contact me at:
georgek@netwrx1.com
Thanks,
George R. Kasica
Listowner